D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Scott Christian]

I'm not go to argue this, since I don't see the new players and how they learn things. I'm just going to say that it seems like much ado about nothing to me. The optimal abilities that the floating ASIs now allow you to access(you could before anyway) aren't that much better. It's a small shift that adding 1 or 2 more orcs to the fight will compensate for.

My deal is the realism aspect and the racial norms aspect. That's why floating ASIs are not used in my game. The negligible power increase isn't really a concern of mine, because it's very easily compensated for. I only have one player that will bother, anyway. The rest of the players are like me and make characters for story and roleplay.

Yeah, I get that. And I don't really think my observations are the most accurate. But I do believe it makes sense logically.

In my gut, I feel like the negligible floating ASI could be debated.

And I completely feel you about the racial norm aspect. I understand.

 

[Lyxen]

I am really curious about this statement. Did you gaming group change during the time between 3e and 5e?

Not that much, actually, but I've also played outside my usual gaming group in particular during my various expats, and I've seen the difference of external players when 3e came in, the effects after that and how it is phrased on forums up to this day.

In particular how entitled some players feel with regards to their DMs, while at the same time having that "I'm a player, I need service" attitude.

 

[Bill Zebub]

...but what we can do is not give them the opportunity to both max their attributes and get the optimal combination of race and class that means that their powers are going to be in synergy most of the time.

Ok, so if the premise is that powergamers are spoiling the game for others, and the solution is to reign in the behavior by limiting the amount that they can optimize, let's talk about the inverse problem: people who don't care at all about optimization and end up ineffective in combat, which spoils the fun for people who like that part of the game.

Maybe we should have some minimum requirements and if people make particularly poor chargen choices we should tell them they can't play that character. Maybe a minimum score in their primary attribute? Or a maximum score in their dump stat? Normal humans will have to be banned of course; if you want to play a human it will have to be a vHuman.

And we should definitely pre-approve their spell list to make sure they don't take any of the truly terrible choices.

Or, similarly, another problem is people who have a character concept that causes them to make sub-optimal tactical choices. The old "I'm a pacifist I can't attack" is an extreme example, but there are more subtle varieties. We should probably limit that, and force people to play characters that are closer to the middle of the powergaming <--> roleplaying spectrum.

Or maybe just randomly delete paragraphs from their carefully written backstories, to make sure they understand that some roleplaying is ok, but they are going to also have to think about optimization. That will probably be an effective way to turn them into the kinds of players we think they should be.

Whaddya think? I don't think anything could possibly go wrong with this plan.

 

[Lyxen]

This Strawman aside, you have been told by people exactly what the benefits are, and none of those things have been POWAAH, AHHNOLD. They have all been story and background driven things, like you claim to want. People have told you that it allows new and different PC types to play. Racial bonuses encourage certain types of character, but not others.

You don't know this about anyone here that isn't in your group. And if your interactionw with me are any indication, you're pretty bad at figuring it out.

Actually, from the positions that you are taking combined to what you have shown us of your PCs, I'm absolutely sure that I'm spot on.

 

[Lyxen]

Casual gamers aren't going to even try to optimize racial abilities. The vast majority of D&D players don't go online to look up combos and don't come to forums to talk about the game. We here are a small subset of D&D gamers.

Thanks, and this is why revendications that Floating ASIs become core instead of just the options that they are today are supported only by a small subset and should not even be discussed.

And a good chunk of the minority that do come here are like me and don't care about powergaming and optimization. There's no real need to guard against what the vast majority of D&D players aren't even going to attempt. You as DM can guard against that for your game.

And this is exactly what I am doing and explaining here.

 

[Lyxen]

Whaddya think? I don't think anything could possibly go wrong with this plan.

Just on the off chance that this is not pure humor (because unfortunately, that problem of substandard characters and therefore player has been said quite a number of times on forums), I will say that there is no need for general rules. Just take the measures that you need for your table to have fun, which in the case of our tables is making sure that the powergamers don't increase the power gap.

But apart from that, that plan is indeed foolproof (except for the fact that whereas Einstein was not convinced that the universe was infinite, he was convinced of the infinity of human stupidity ).

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, from the positions that you are taking combined to what you have shown us of your PCs, I'm absolutely sure that I'm spot on.

Which is your problem. You assume way too much. I'm very story driven.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Just on the off chance that this is not pure humor (because unfortunately, that problem of substandard characters and therefore player has been said quite a number of times on forums), I will say that there is no need for general rules. Just take the measures that you need for your table to have fun, which in the case of our tables is making sure that the powergamers don't increase the power gap.

But apart from that, that plan is indeed foolproof (except for the fact that whereas Einstein was not convinced that the universe was infinite, he was convinced of the infinity of human stupidity ).

Yes, of course I was being silly. But there was also a point that I hope was obvious: forcing people to play characters they don't want to play isn't really going to persuade them to change their playstyle. Some thoughts:

Is the real problem that the player acting like a jerk?
Try explaining why their behavior is offensive. (In my experience, the Venn diagram of "people who are really into the mechanical side of roleplaying games" and "people who have no idea how their behavior is perceived by others" has a strong overlap). If talking doesn't have any effect, don't play with them.

Is the real problem that they are so much more effective in combat that other players feel useless?
I will stand by my claim that in 5e this is primarily a matter of tactical decision making (including spell selection), not character build, and the players who are really good at this will dominate even with a sub-optimal character. If the players who feel ineffective are not interested in learning how to become more effective, then the only solution is for those people to not be at the same table.

Is the real problem that it just annoys the DM that people don't play the way he/she would play?
This is a character flaw. Get over it.

 

[Maxperson]

And this is exactly what I am doing and explaining here.

You're overzealous in your approach. This is a pretty insignificant increase in power and if I did allow floating ASIs, it would be compensated for by an extra monster or two. It's not an end of the world situation like you seem to be portraying.

 

[LadyElect]

Especially when, on top of this, there is that huge powergaming community that sniffs and derides all characters that have not been created optimally, the player obviously being a moron ?

Moreover, honestly, I'm not too concerned about what is happening with the community in general, everyone can play the game that they want. It's just that I am really annoyed by the powergaming people above, for one, and I like to remind them that floating ASIs are an option (for some reason that infuriates them).

After that, I honestly am not more pig-headed than people insisting that Floating ASIs are gifts from the light above and that I'm stupid for not accepting their great benefits, and this, by the way, without ever telling me exactly what these benefits are, and certainly not putting in practice benefits other than POWAAAH !

None of these caricatures appeared here prior to the suggestion, nor has anyone really bought into them since, so I'm not sure you've set your sights on the right target here. And—given all that you've shared of what you do and don't pay attention to at your table—it comes across that you see 5e as being to some degree modular for roleplay/story purposes. I'm surprised to see racial ASIs as such a sticking point for you to not possibly be a modification that can derive from the same intent.

I am curious of what you think of roleplay-heavy, rules-lite redesign attempts like:
Main Principles - D&D 5e Story Mode

being reasonable people who understand the benefits of limiting the power gap (as well as long term fans of the racial ASIs that they, like me, grew up with), they agreed not to implement the Floating ASIs.

And with regards to the power gap again, whether missed or glossed over, I'm still curious about the specifics of how you see floating ASIs increase this gap overall rather than reduce it and, at worst, create a handful of specific problem combinations? And if you're already running with some modifications as opposed to purely by the books/RAW, why not address those specific combinations just the same in order to reap the best of both worlds—decreasing the power gap by improving combinations rarely taken under default rules and potentially increasing the breadth of the setting and story with those currently infrequently seen combinations.

Of course, if it all comes down to enjoying and leaning into provided archetypes like some others here, understood and so be it, but it hadn't stuck out to me as an important part of your stance yet.